"Monuments are nothing if not selective aids to memory: they encourage us to remember some things and to forget others." Brian Ladd, "The Ghosts of Berlin"

The Berlin Wall is a strange monument indeed. The Wall is representative of a past that many Germans would rather forget, yet great lengths have been taken in order to preserve and protect the standing parts of the Wall that remain from further destruction. This struck me as interesting, as this reverses the typical understanding of a "monument." Well-known American "monuments" are extremely focused on influencing the public's selective memory by memorializing people and events that have positively affected the United States' history. I can't think of a monument that encapsulates a negative part of American history-- and this makes sense, because who would want to be reminded of the horrors of the past? But I do think that these events are extremely important to remember as a country and a citizen of that country. Reading about the Berlin Wall and its history was very interesting in this regard, because this structure serves as a reminder of a very dark period in world history, and therefore its relationship to the German public is extremely complex. How are German identities shaped by the existence of this reminder of the past? How are American identities shaped by the lack of these reminders, but instead a surfeit of monuments showing how great the country and its past inhabitants are? I also was intrigued by Lutz Rathenow's notion of the wall being a "zipper," both linking and dividing Germans. The Wall became a scapegoat of sorts-- allowing Germans to explain away any apparent disunity by blaming the existence of the Wall, therefore keeping the unified German identity in tact. This apparent disunity might be seen through examination of maps-- the East Berlin maps are described as having a huge blank space for the West Berlin side. This erasure of geography and, by extension, fellow Germans and their identities, is an example of the disunity felt by many Germans at the time. However, on the West Berlin maps, the Berlin Wall is denoted by a faint line, barely distinguishable from street markings. This seems to indicate more of a unity among the divided Berlin, or at least, some sort of hope for wholeness. How were these maps influential in the formation and upkeep of Berliner identities? Was the erasure of West Berlin particularly important in the identities of East Berliners? Did the barely-there Berlin Wall designation on West Berlin maps promote a certain kind of feeling towards East Germans, and how did this influence West German identities?

"From cars, coffee, and computers to wheat, water, and Windows software, practically everything that is bought and sold today represents the coming together of global economic ties." Matthew Sparke, "Introduction to Globalization"

Reading this chapter of an intro globalization textbook felt like reading "Capitalism for Beginners." From the first sentence onward, I felt like I was shoved back into high school, forced into pedestrian metacognitive exercises aimed to expand my view of the world, amazing and astounding me! (E.g. "Why are you reading this book? It seems like a simple question, and answers come easily to mind. It was recommended to you or is required reading for a class. It is about a topic that seems relevant, interesting, or, at least, socially important. And, of course, you bought it. But think again. What actually enabled that simple purchase to happen?") Perhaps I'm being too harsh, and perhaps my own anti-capitalism bias is permeating this reflection. But I did feel like this introduction to globalization wasn't quite what I was looking for-- borderline obnoxious alliteration explained concepts I was already familiar with (see quote), and history never interested me, especially economic history. However, I do see that this chapter was a good jumping off point for further topics surrounding globalization, particularly critical analysis of the increasing interconnectedness of our world. How is globalization affecting marginalized groups, both within and outside of first world countries? (Or, more specifically, how is capitalism affecting marginalized groups?) How are identities shaped as we are increasingly able to contact other people and access large amounts of information with the click of a button? Are national identities being compressed as our technological reach expands? These sorts of questions interest me concerning globalization, and I hope that reading more chapters might offer some insight beyond purely informational text.